My first learning from Unit 1:3 was very practical. I was having a hectic week when we wrote our definitions, so I composed mine in a terrible rush. This led to the realization that it really is better to write without self-editing and then to go back and work with a finished draft rather than to edit as you go. I found that I wrote much faster than I knew I could, and that my writing was of a higher quality than I thought that it could be. The latter observation was confirmed by the minimal edits that my peer reviewer recommended.
My second learning from the lesson was that the reflex to button a writing assignment neatly at its end is a good one. I did this instinctually, concluding my definition as if it were an essay, and then I nearly deleted my final paragraph out of concern that I’d been wrong to do so. However, in re-reading Erika’s instructions for the piece, I discovered that the class was specifically directed to treat the assignment like an essay; and then, in reviewing my peer’s definition, I noticed that I felt left hanging at it’s end because it was not noticeably concluded. (This is something that I would have observed regardless of how I’d ended my own piece, so it confirmed for me that writers should attend to the conclusion of most, if not all, of their written works.)
Finally, this lesson reminded me of the importance of sensitivity when peer reviewing. Some of the introductory content of my peer’s definition was taken directly from Professor Paterson’s instructions for our assignment, but I think I used the word “plagiarized” too casually in recommending to my colleague that either paraphrasing or using quotation marks is something he may want to do next time he reiterates her directions. Considering that my peer did not intend to pass off another’s work as his own, I likely should have been more careful not to sound accusatory in my comments. My peer’s response brought this to my attention.
